SUREKHA MURDANGIA Vs. RAMAHARI MURDANGIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal at the instance of the complainant-appellant against the judgment dated 30-7-1987 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Berhampur acquitting opposite party No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) from the charge under Section 494, IPC and opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 (respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein) from the charge under Section 494/109, IPC in ICC Case No. 37 of 1983.

(2.) The case, in brief, is that the complaint-appellant lodged a complaint before the Court of said Judicial Magistrate, First Class alleging, inter alia, that respondent No. 1 Ramahari Murdangia is the legally married husband of the complainant. The marriage between them was solemnized in accordance with the Hindu law. She alleged in the said complaint that respondent No. 2 Lili Rasa was married by respondent No. 1 in the Kali temple by exchange of garlands. But the trial Court after analysing the evidence in this case came to a finding that no evidence was adduced on behalf of the complaint to show that at the time of marriage between respondents 1 and 2 Saptapadi around the sacred fire was performed. Performance of Saptapadi around the sacred fire is an essential element of solemnization of marriage under Hindu Law. Therefore, there is no proof or evidence in this case that marriage between respondents 1 and 2 was solemnized strictly in terms of Hindu law and in the absence of such evidence the trial Court came to a further finding that no case of bigamy could be proved against the respondents and accordingly, by the impugned judgment it acquitted all the respondents from the charges mentioned above.

(3.) On perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, I am also of the view that the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that in the absence of any evidence of Saptapadi around the secred lire at the time of marriage between respondents 1 and 2 none could be convicted for the offence of bigamy or for the offence of abetment to commit bigamy and accordingly, committed no error in acquitting all the respondents.